p A correct understanding of the relation between politics and economics is the most important criterion of the scientific nature of a social theory and the social practice resting on it. The starting point of the Marxist-Leninist theory of social development and the materialist view of history consists in recognition of the definitive role of production in this process, and recognition of the fact that changes in the social superstructure, specifically the political life of society, are based on changes in the mode of production which are determined by the development of the productive forces. This is the fundamental distinction between Marxism-Leninism, the theory of the revolutionary working class, and the social theories put forward by the reactionary ideologists not only of the big but also of the petty bourgeoisie.

p The twofold nature of the condition and mentality of the petty-bourgeois masses, the peasant masses above all, is expressed in the existence of opposite ideological traditions: the progressive tradition of revolutionary democracy, which real revolutionaries regard with profound respect, and reactionary traditions against which real revolutionaries carry on an implacable struggle, and this means specifically the traditions of pseudo-revolutionary adventurism and anarchism.

p Anarchists, like the followers of Bakunin, denied the need for a mass proletarian party, for the proletariat’s hegemony 207 in the socialist revolution and for its dictatorship, and regarded the revolution as a spontaneous rebellion by pettybourgeois masses and declasse elements. Following Marx and Engels, Lenin resolutely condemned Bakunin’s views, characterised them as the outlook of a petty-bourgeois despairing of his salvation, and consistently opposed any manifestations of anarchist theory and tactics in the revolutionary movement. In his work “Left-Wing” Communism —an Infantile Disorder and several others, Lenin exposed the reactionary essence of anarchist conceptions and showed them to be incompatible with Marxist theory and the strategy and tactics of the communist movement.

p The ideologists of the proletariat regarded anarchism as an essentially counter-revolutionary trend which brought division into the liberation movement of the masses, and which hampered the strengthening of the unity of the revolutionary forces, and development of the alliance between the working class and the non-proletarian exploited masses, the toiling peasantry in the first place. By contrast, Marx, Engels and Lenin regarded revolutionary democracy as a trend expressing the truly revolutionary aspirations of the non-proletarian masses which helped to raise the awareness of these masses to the level of proletarian ideology. In their ideological development, Marx and Engels themselves travelled from revolutionary democracy to scientific communism.

p Marxism was a continuation of the revolutionary- democratic tradition which, in particular, was expressed in the understanding of the dependence of politics on economics. In contrast to this, anarchism saw politics as constituting the main force behind the historical process, and relied not on objective economic prerequisites for revolution and the mass movements they generated, but on arbitrary sparking off of putsches by handfuls of politicians, declasse elements, and so on. The anarchists concentrated on the destructive side of the revolution and lost sight of its creative side.

p We have to deal with these matters because Mao’s ideological and theoretical platform, which is at the basis of his group’s current political line, is a departure not only from proletarian ideology, from Marxism-Leninism, but also from all the progressive traditions of the revolutionary peasantry.

p Maoism gives expression not to petty-bourgeois ideology 208 as a whole, but to the reactionary tradition of this ideology, specifically, the anarchist tradition, elements of whose ideological content Mao and his group have used to speculate on the ideological and political immaturity of sizable sections of the population resulting from the country’s economic backwardness.

p The anarchist tendencies in Mao’s views were expressed variously and in differing forms at the succeeding stages of his ideological evolution. It is true that during the civil war—the struggle against the Kuomintang regime—Mao paid lip-service to the danger of such expressions of anarchism within the Party branches and the Red Army of China as “the militaristic mentality" which is connected with mistrust of the strength of the masses, putschism, clannishness, the “freebooters” spirit”, demands for egalitarian distribution, etc. In that period, he made a show of attacking the very elements of anarchist mentality and tactics which he himself now makes a point of openly and stubbornly implanting.  [208•1 

p However, even then anarchist tendencies had a definite effect on Mao’s own views, being expressed in a one-sided enthusiasm for political means of class struggle and an underestimation of its economic content and tasks.  [208•2 

p The analysis of economic phenomena is known to have played a most important part in the writings of the founders of Marxism-Leninism. Scientific political economy, an important component part of Marx’s doctrine, was formulated in his fundamental writings, the greatest of which is his immortal Capital. In the creative development of Marxism, Lenin gave much attention to an analysis of economic processes and specifically dealt with them in such of his works as The Development of Capitalism in Russia and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and a great number of articles.

p A departure from this tradition, which is characteristic of genuine social science, is to be found in Mao’s writings. 209 which betray an obvious neglect for questions of economic theory.

p This could to some extent be explained by the fact that for many years Mao had to work in an atmosphere of armed struggle, which required primary attention to matters of military strategy and tactics, and which tended to push questions arising in the development of production into the background. That is why Mao regarded economic problems not from the standpoint of the prospects of socialist change, but merely as current economic questions directly subordinate to the political tasks of the civil war. Because Mao was not sufficiently mature in theoretical terms, he tended to turn this approach into an absolute: he developed the notion that politics had the decisive role to play in social life. The thesis he formulated—“politics is the soul, the command force"— clearly expresses his view of the relationship between economics and politics, a view which is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism.

p Characterising the Communist Party’s scientific approach in formulating its policy, Lenin wrote: “We value communism only when it is based on economic facts ... ’we always took our stand first and foremost on an exact economic analysis’."  [209•1  Another of Lenin’s references to the question stresses the definitive role of economics and characterises the meaning of the attitude of those who ignore it. In 1918, he said: “Economic interests and the economic position of the classes which rule our state lie at the root of both our home and foreign policy. These propositions which constitute the basis of the Marxist world outlook and have been confirmed for us Russian revolutionaries by the great experience of both Russian revolutions, must not be forgotten even for a moment if we are to avoid losing ourselves in the thickets, the labyrinth of diplomatic tricks, a labyrinth which at times is artificially created and made more intricate by people, classes, parties and groups who like to fish in muddy waters, or who are compelled to do so."  [209•2 

p It is precisely the basis of the Marxist world outlook, which Lenin brought out, that Mao distorts because, when considering the relationship between economics and politics, he 210 substitutes a mechanistic for a dialectical approach and essentially presents politics as a force which is independent of economics.

p Economics and politics are organically connected with each other. Revealing this interconnection, Lenin wrote that “politics is a concentrated expression of economics”,  [210•1  and that is precisely why “politics must take precedence over economics".  [210•2  In his article “Once Again on the Trade Unions" Lenin showed that it was not right to separate the “political approach" from the “economic approach" and to try mechanically to combine them as principles isolated from each other. The political approach to questions of economic construction from the standpoint of the working class requires that the interests of the current economic advantage should not blot out the vital economic interests of the working people, and that the primary economic tasks of the working class—the tasks of building and developing the socialist economy—should be regarded as the fundamental ones.

p Politics takes precedence over economics simply because the question of whether the working class is to retain its economic domination is decided in the political sphere, in the sphere of the class struggle. It is precisely on the successful solution of the political task of consolidating the alliance of the working class and the toiling peasantry that the implementation of socialist change in the economy depends. Let us note that it is not any type of politics that takes precedence over economics, but only correct politics, which give genuine expression to the economic interests of the working class and indicate the scientifically-grounded ways for realising these interests, relying on a consideration of the requirements of objective economic laws. Lenin stressed: “Without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problems either,"  [210•3  adding that for the working class which has taken power into its own hands, for its Party and for the state of the proletarian dictatorship the most important content of politics henceforth amounts to a fulfilment of this “production problem": 211 organisation of economic construction on scientific principles, unification of the efforts of all the working people and direction of their activity in building and developing the socialist economy.

p Neglect of the dialectical interconnection between economics and politics and inability to analyse economic processes and to apply such analysis in formulating policies were increasingly revealed in Mao’s writings as the specific conditions of the civil war receded and China entered a period of peaceful construction, when economic questions assumed central importance.

p Initially, Mao did not try blatantly to contrast his specific approach to these questions with the economic line formulated by the collective thinking of the Communist Party of China, which relied on the Soviet Union’s experience. The correctness of this policy, expressed in the CPC’s general line and approved, following nation-wide discussion, by the National People’s Congress in September 1954, was borne out by the successes in fulfilling the first five-year plan of China’s economic development (1953-1957).

p This plan provided for the establishment of a primary base of socialist industry and the socialist transformation of agriculture, concentration of the main forces on building 694 large industrial enterprises, among which the main ones were 156 enterprises and shops that were being built with the Soviet Union’s assistance. The plan targets for capital construction were overfulfilled by 10 per cent. The targets for gross industrial output were overfulfilled by 15 per cent, and the targets for the staple cereal and industrial crops were slightly overfulfilled.

However, Mao saw these successes not as an argument in favour of the general line adopted by the Party, but as a pretext for its revision. From 1955 on, Mao, spurred by his hegemonistic aspirations and claims to personal leadership of the world revolutionary movement, has been insisting on supplanting the general line by the new line designed to put China ahead of all the socialist countries in one great spurt. While trying to impose on the Party his adventurist line, he also tries to give it some theoretical backing, and all of Mao’s “creativity” in economic theory comes to these attempts in the form of separate statements, thrown here and there in his various articles and speeches. It is futile to seek in these 212 statements any hint of a scientific analysis of economic processes. Still, they reveal most clearly a definite conception of economic development, and because it is embodied in the Chinese leaders’ economic policy, it is worthwhile to consider its content.